One common theme throughout is the 'herbivore vs carnivore' in which is similiar to real life's black vs white race. Kevin is a rabbit, Kell is a wolf, Lindesfarne is an hedgehog (adopted, also an omnivore) and Rudy is a wolf and Coney is a carnivorous rabbit . Go further and you'll find that Kevin's Ex was a rabbit-now-a-rat, Rudy's friend Bruno had a operation to become a herbivore, Lindesfarne made a choice to go omnivore, Danielle is a human double of Kevin's sister who died in the series and was pulled from GPF's parallel world and became a rabbit... who eats meat, marries a fox, and has a child (see above linked strips) who is neither fox, nor rabbit, nor human. Another of Rudy's friends, edgar wanted to join a hunting team, and shaved his mane (therefor looking like a lioness), and I can go on and on on issues that have a matching moral line that someone would take offense to.

If anything I'd say Bill was more open minded about issues...

And I hadn't read it since like ... may till this thread.

Anyway, it's not the most exciting comic in the world, but I've never found anything wrong with it to object to.

I've also watched shows like "Drawn Together" and "South Park, and found there was a lot of stuff I'd object to, but just ignore. South Park I find harder to watch because the crappy animation is more of a putoff. Yes there are shows on TV that I think just shouldn't be made, but again I'm not going to tell networks I'm not going to watch their channel, I'm just going to change the channel or find something better to do.

It's not that I don't see what it is someone might object to - the killing and consuming of one sentient being by another sentient being.

It's that I don't see the reason for the objection - this is a comic, and it takes the standard tact of any form of comic violence: Accept the funny; ignore the reality.

Hammerspace is far worse in this regard - I can guarantee you someone has been hit in the head with something heavy because some kid saw it on a cartoon.

So are other forms of comic recklessness - I myself strapped model rocket engines to rollerskates after seeing something similar done by Wile E. Coyote. As a kid, it seemed a cool thing to do!

In both cases, there is no consideration of the ramifications of the violence. Because it's done with comedic intent. And both examples are of regularly, reoccuring types of violence.

I guess my real question is, "Why would an adult who was (one assumes) raised on comic violence like any kid of the time, be upset at this form of comedic violence, and specifically upset enough to actually make a commentary about it, as opposed to just going "Meh." and turning away from it?"

Crossfire: "Thank you! That explains it very nicely, and in a language that someone other than a physicist can understand..."

Denial is not falsification. You can't avoid a fact just because you don't like it."Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"

Kisai wrote:Honestly, I don't find kevin and kell interesting enough to read daily, I'll come back to it after months. It only has two simple appeals, computer/nerd jokes and "how can I do the same joke only with animals" with an consistant continuity that you don't usually see in joke comics.

But generally I didn't care about the animals-eat-animals aspect because that is what animals do. Humans eat other animals too and that's why we have crazy PETA people who kill more animals.

Personally, I find that if you can't separate reality from fiction, stop reading fiction. Nobody is forcing you to read it. Furries aren't real, despite the countless people who buy fursuits and goto conventions together.

How is this any different from "defeating" bad guys when they look human in any childrens/teens animation?

But isn't the main goal of every storyteller ever (except OBS) to blur the line between realty and fiction, to convince us that his characters and events are real, if just for as long as we read his comic? It's something that writers slave over for their entire lives, how to make characters more realistic, how to make readers care for their characters and feel for their troubles. That's the whole point of importance of issues we constantly talk about, such as "characterisation", "plausability", "suspension of disbilief". That's why you return to a comic, because you started caring for it's characters, so you want to see what happens to them in the end.I'd go as far as to say that, if someone's unable to sink into fiction and consider it "real", then why does he read it anyway?

We don't care for when we see a villain depicted because, and this should be obvious, because he is a bad guy. He is modeled for us not to like him, but to dislike him and hope for his defeat.We, however, do care when a bad guy is hurt. Some even cry in cinemas when a good guy gets killed. We even care somewhat for supporting characters even though we didn't get to know them well. That's the purpose of that whole "I'm going to retirement tomorrow" cliche.

Creatures killed in Kevin and Kell very often aren't villains. Very often, they're just doing their job, and only the fact that it's a stereotypically unpopular profession makes them a target. Even more often, they've done something wrong, but not so wrong as to deserve death. They're often more likeable than main characters, despite author's intention.

http://www.kevinandkell.com/about/faq.html

Why shouldn't a prey species be willing to use a weapon? If I were prey I would be thinking, "I might appear to be incompetent, but at least I wouldn't be eaten."

Chris Kolher, the webmaster of kevinandkell.com, has summarized the predator/prey relationship in the two 'Prime Directives' :

THE PREDATOR RULE: "As a predator, you may kill and eat someone as long as they are not in any way related to you. You must completely devour them, or leave the rest to be completely devoured by scavengers. Disobey either of these two rules and it's considered murder."

THE HERBIVORE RULE: "As a herbivore, you may defend yourself from predator attack. If, during an attack, a herbivore were to kill an attacking predator, the herbivore would be spared a murder charge, as long as they could prove it was "self defense". Any herbivore who kills cannot eat the individual they killed and be spared a murder charge, since herbivores are not subject to the Predator Rule."

I believe that this efficiently disarms the whole "it's just a funny comic, you're overanalyzing it too much" arguement. Apparently Holbrook spent quite a lot of time analyzing various aspects himself. Too much effort for making a funny fluff comic, don't you think?He probably did it because he was getting a lot of questions of this kind, but his answer should have been simply "this is just a silly comic, deal with it". This answer just reinforces analyzing.

I don't feel like repeating too many, specially since I was so wordy in previous thread. I'll just say: the aspect of animals eating animals isn't the only thing that makes comic disturbing. There are many other webcomics that made the same twist with animals living in a civil society but still eating each others, and cartoons have been milking the concept of sentient animals trying to eat each other since forever. But while those others can be disturbing in a cheerful, good way, K&K is disturbing because it adds to this the aspect of "superiority" of certain characters over the others as an excuse for eating them.

I think the point of this thread is being missed. Original poster says "I used to read X comic untill the Author of X did something I find offensive and now I won't read it anymore, who's with me?"

My response is more along the line of "If you don't want to read it anymore, nobody is forcing you to"

I'm always surprised that someone still uses this arguement.
It's in people's nature to comment on things they've seen, read, experienced, both good and bad. If I read a comic I don't like, well, of course I'm going to bash it sooner or later! I wouldn't like live in a world where I'd be forbidden to do that!
We shouldn't all just talk about stuff we like and think happy thoughts. What would that make of us? But criticizing something doesn't make it a crusade against it. One forum thread does not make a crusade.

Incidentally, I think that your paraphrase of the first post isn't quite right. It's more like: "I used to read X comic and always felt there was something wrong with it, but when author of X did a certain thing, it helped me sum up my thoughts and realise what is wrong."

* * *
It's funny though, how we kind of realise that one comic is bad like this, in waves. There was that time when we talked about Dominic Deegan in several instances, all iniciated by different, unrelated, people, and now it's K&K's turn.
Nothing unusual though. Talking with people helps you straighten your thoughts and put them into words. Sometimes, only through discussion, you actually figure out whats and whys of the subject. So I'm not surprised that if there's a thread about K&K, suddenly a lot of people appear to hate it, even though they never mentioned it before.

I think the point of this thread is being missed. Original poster says "I used to read X comic untill the Author of X did something I find offensive and now I won't read it anymore, who's with me?"

My response is more along the line of "If you don't want to read it anymore, nobody is forcing you to"

I'm always surprised that someone still uses this arguement.It's in people's nature to comment on things they've seen, read, experienced, both good and bad. If I read a comic I don't like, well, of course I'm going to bash it sooner or later! I wouldn't like live in a world where I'd be forbidden to do that!We shouldn't all just talk about stuff we like and think happy thoughts. What would that make of us? But criticizing something doesn't make it a crusade against it. One forum thread does not make a crusade.

Incidentally, I think that your paraphrase of the first post isn't quite right. It's more like: "I used to read X comic and always felt there was something wrong with it, but when author of X did a certain thing, it helped me sum up my thoughts and realise what is wrong."

* * *It's funny though, how we kind of realise that one comic is bad like this, in waves. There was that time when we talked about Dominic Deegan in several instances, all iniciated by different, unrelated, people, and now it's K&K's turn.Nothing unusual though. Talking with people helps you straighten your thoughts and put them into words. Sometimes, only through discussion, you actually figure out whats and whys of the subject. So I'm not surprised that if there's a thread about K&K, suddenly a lot of people appear to hate it, even though they never mentioned it before.

Considering that K&K is not hosted on comicgenesis, it's not like anyone from their mailing list is going to come here and start a pro K&K puppet show.

It just so happens that the people who colour K&K also do or did comics I read for a while too. The number of wecomics I read has gone down since many comics I used to read update less than twice a week, which means less incentive to check.

And the dominic deegan thing is the same argument, "arg this comic is bad, why is it so popular" or "how could I possibly have liked it this long..." I could say the same about MegaTokyo too. As a comic gets more popular, the more "rar, rar, this comic sux" threads popup on unrelated forums and mailing lists which I again ask... if you dislike it so much, why do you keep reading it? Even negative news is positive news, and on any ad hosted site, who cares if people are only reading it to criticize it.

Anyway. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy">The mohammad cartoons</a> was the reason I brought up "it's a cartoon, not reality, stop reading it if you don't like it", in which resulted in embassies were firebombed, lawsuits were filed, and people sent death threats because they believe the cartoons to be an attack (real) on them instead of what it is supposed to be (satire, funny.) So I again mention that if people are unable to read/watch a cartoon without being offended, then just don't read or watch it anymore. They could have simply not bought the publication the cartoons were in, or boycotted it entirely after that point, and they'd see a drop in revenue, which would send a stronger message. Instead negative publicity from the muslim world erupted which if anything brought more attention and support for freedom of speech.

There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.

Bad taste and jackassery don't deserve fire bombings, promises of murder, and so on. But there was genuine emotional harm intended in the images, and so the reaction while not justifiable, is at least understandable.

Crossfire: "Thank you! That explains it very nicely, and in a language that someone other than a physicist can understand..."

Denial is not falsification. You can't avoid a fact just because you don't like it."Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"

Christ, there's a lot of people saying "stop having a conversation guys!" this time around.
Duff really summed up what's wrong with the "well, then DON'T READ IT, or talk about it. EVER. Except here's a huge list of links from the site proving my point in favor of the comic. NOW the conversation is over. Because I said it is. Fuck you."

mcDuffies wrote:My response is more along the line of "If you don't want to read it anymore, nobody is forcing you to"I'm always surprised that someone still uses this arguement.It's in people's nature to comment on things they've seen, read, experienced, both good and bad. If I read a comic I don't like, well, of course I'm going to bash it sooner or later! I wouldn't like live in a world where I'd be forbidden to do that!We shouldn't all just talk about stuff we like and think happy thoughts. What would that make of us? But criticizing something doesn't make it a crusade against it. One forum thread does not make a crusade.

rkolter wrote:There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.

Bad taste and jackassery don't deserve fire bombings, promises of murder, and so on. But there was genuine emotional harm intended in the images, and so the reaction while not justifiable, is at least understandable.

I disagree

On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam" [8] ("Profound anxiety about criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv (English: The Qur'an and the life of the Prophet Muhammad ISBN 87-638-0049-7). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before one agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:

One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen.[8]

In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen had been assaulted by five assailants who opposed his reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture.[9]

The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. Comedian Frank Hvam declared that he would (hypothetically) dare to urinate on the Bible on television, but not on the Qur'an. [10][11] The translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain anonymous due to concerns about violent reprisals.

The point being that nobody wants to take credit for criticizing islam, and satire is a form of criticism because their is a stereotype belief held among non-muslims that criticizing them is effectively signing ones own death. The publications of the cartoons ultimately brought exactly what the west expected. The most vocal critics of the cartoons were heard, and those that disagreed but didn't call for the beheading of the cartoonists were not.

I do not agree that publishing the cartoons was akin to feeding a jewish fellow a ham and then wondering why nobody's laughing, as no harm came to anyone from reading. Islam prohibits depictions of the prophet mohammad, because, like in Christiananity, you are not to worship false idols. The cartoons were not drawn by muslims for muslims. The only harm would come from those believing the depiction is true. In a democractic society with a free press, you can publish anything you damn well please as long as it is not to incite harm on another.

Until such time that that the fundamentalist sects of society (muslim, christian, or whatever else) learn that they are not special and not deserving of special treatment from those who do not follow their beliefs, they will continue to be criticized by the more moderate people for it.

The unfortunate thing is that ultimately the west associates muslims with terrorists because of such reactions.

Which brings us back to the original topic. I do not see Bill advocating killing. The comic is simply a reflection of reality except all the conflicts of reality swapped with "how can I make this funny with animals" . I don't see how how someone would think Bill is really advocating that people should be butchered and sold at a supermarket.

When I first read the title to this post, I thought to myself, "why would anyone be creeped out by that Nickelodeon show Keenan and Kell? It took reading through several posts on this thread to read the title correctly as Kevin. Until that point, I was perplexed that someone would do a fan comic about the show, and that it somehow contained furry murders.

So, obviously, I'd never heard of the comic before, and had to track it down. It doesn't bother me, for two major reasons:

1. Characters are constructs, and have no souls. I'm not the type to apply souls to fictional characters, no matter how much personality they may exhibit. Therefore, I'm not going to pretend shock and dismay if lines on a page get snuffed out.

2. I find what he's doing to be actually quite interesting. Too often, as has been pointed out in the OP's letter, anthro/furry/funny animal characters are pretty much just people in sheep's (or mice's, or wolves', or bunnies', etc.) clothing. There isn't much beyond the fuzzy surface to distinguish the animal character from the human character. At least K&K seems to want to address animal instinct and animal behavior. I've lived in the wilderness most of my life. If you've ever seen ground squirrels kill their own, and munch on the body until a magpie flies off with it, or a pack of coyotes or sow grizzly bear take down an elk calf, and begin eating it while it's still alive, you know without a doubt that nature isn't kind.

So, to me, the strip is posing and interesting question by mixing the distinctly animal with the distinctly human. what if the anthropomorphic animals still exhibited animal behavior, all the while living within the familiar trappings of our distinctly human society, by wearing clothes, living in houses, driving cars, and such, yet still exhibited territorial leanings, inter-species conflict, and, of course, killed and ate each other pretty often? It's something that I can't recall ever seeing addressed, and I find it refreshing.

"Just because we're amateurs, doesn't mean our comics have to be amateurish." -McDuffies

Man, am I ever glad I came here. This thread has helped me get my perspective back... but also put a name to a lot of the things that prompted me to post in the first place. Mac, you're a godsend.

I have this image in my head of a rapist turning to the people trying to rescue his victim and saying "Hey, if it offends you, just look the other way or leave!"
As though the whole thing were simply a matter of personal taste with no remainder and no foundation for anything more significant than mild disapproval.

I think it jars me so much because, as someone pointed out, a line has been crossed and Holbrook, if he even noticed, is hoping no one will pay mind to the man behind the curtain.

The only thing that bugs me about this discussion is that if the comic was a relatively lighthearted joke comic about some human serial killers (cant remember the name of the one I'm thinking about, pretty bad tbh), no one would be complaining worth a damn.

I dont read this comic, i don't like it and i don't think its funny, but i think the furry angle is giving some people an excuse to jump on it, when, to be fair, from what ive read it is making no attempt to hide the fact that it has a fairly major dark streak.

Also? Chopping Block (While not at all comparable) Has the most adorable serial killer ever and I WANT TO GIVE HIM A HUG.

rkolter wrote:There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.

What a horridly defective analogy. The proper one would be a Christian eating a ham, and a Jew proceeding to send him death threats because of it. A religious rule saying you can't draw a prophet, or can't eat ham, or can't what the hell ever, obviously only applies to people who subscribe to that religion. The notion that non-Muslims should be obliged to adhere to some Islamic rule or other is absurd.

rkolter wrote:There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.

What a horridly defective analogy. The proper one would be a Christian eating a ham, and a Jew proceeding to send him death threats because of it.

Not really. The Jyllands-Posten called for depictions of the prophet Mohammed in such a manner that would anger muslims in an effort to make a statement in favor of freedom of speech. Most of those sent in were simply made with the intention to piss people off and hence only one or two were funny in any way.

While the printing of the cartoons or drawing them isn't (at least in the Western world) and shouldn't be against the law, it was a rather low and despicable thing to do.

A religious rule saying you can't draw a prophet, or can't eat ham, or can't what the hell ever, obviously only applies to people who subscribe to that religion. The notion that non-Muslims should be obliged to adhere to some Islamic rule or other is absurd.

The problem with that is that the fundamentally religious would disagree with you there, so while it is a sound notion, those that wish to impose religious laws believe that they apply to everyone.

Last edited by KWill on Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

KWill wrote:The Jyllands-Posten called for depictions of the prophet Mohammed in such a manner that would anger muslims in an effort to make a statement in favor of freedom of speech. Most of those sent in were simply made with the intention to piss people off and hence only one or two were funny in any way.

That is not correct, but I've seen that assertion float around a lot. It originates from the imams who misrepresented the whole issue on their incendiary tour of the Middle East (see Kisai's link a few posts back). Jyllands-Posten simply asked some cartoonists to "draw Mohamed" - they were completely free to interpret that any way they wished. Of the 12 drawings, 6 actually don't feature the prophet, and of the 6 that do, 3 are positive or neutral depictions. Whether the final 3 are negative and/or insulting is up to interpretation.

Fun fact: The cartoons didn't cause any brouhaha until two weeks after being published, when a group of fundamentalist imams displayed the cartoons in their mosques, telling their congregations how insulting they were. And the cartoons weren't noticed outside of Denmark and Norway until months later, when the same group of imams had toured the Middle East, bringing along the cartoons plus other and far "worse" images, that had never been published in any newpaper - but the imams claimed they had. Deliberate lies and manipulation. Seems the newspaper was wrong for printing the cartoons, but it was quite OK for the imams to shove these purportedly insulting images in the face of their fellow Muslims. Go figure.

It's like American cartoonist Doug Marlette put it: The Mohamed cartoons "easily satisfied Western standards of legitimate commentary and in fact only became internationally controversial after being misrepresented to the larger Muslim world".

Paul Escobar wrote:That is not correct, but I've seen that assertion float around a lot. It originates from the imams who misrepresented the whole issue on their incendiary tour of the Middle East (see Kisai's link a few posts back). Jyllands-Posten simply asked some cartoonists to "draw Mohamed" - they were completely free to interpret that any way they wished. Of the 12 drawings, 6 actually don't feature the prophet, and of the 6 that do, 3 are positive or neutral depictions. Whether the final 3 are negative and/or insulting is up to interpretation.

The Jyllands-Posten asked for them after a widespread debate on whether one was allowed to criticize or caricature Mohammed and Islam that went on in Denmark. The JP then tried to make a statement that one should be allowed to print whatever one wanted.

Also, I have seen the cartoons, and if I'm not very much mistaken, 6 unmistakeably display the prophet, while 3 others probably depict him. You also realize that to a vast majority of muslims, any depiction of the prophet is blasphemy, whether in a neutral context or not.

KWill wrote:You also realize that to a vast majority of muslims, any depiction of the prophet is blasphemy, whether in a neutral context or not.

Amusingly, the purpose of Sunni Islam's prohibition against depicting Mohamed is to prevent idolatry, as only God is to be worshipped. Mohamed was but a man, and to treat a perceived affront to him as blasphemy - now that rather looks like idolatry.

KWill wrote:You also realize that to a vast majority of muslims, any depiction of the prophet is blasphemy, whether in a neutral context or not.

Amusingly, the purpose of Sunni Islam's prohibition against depicting Mohamed is to prevent idolatry, as only God is to be worshipped. Mohamed was but a man, and to treat a perceived affront to him as blasphemy - now that rather looks like idolatry. :wink:

Yeah, I said this already. Don't want no muslims hanging pictures of Mohammad up on their walls and praying to him like catholics do to Mary.

At anyrate back to the "don't like it, don't read it",

Fictional works are not real. Nobody is holding a gun to your head or threatening to butcher you if you read or do not read it. Any analogy to real life is still a bad argument because Real life exists. Someone being raped and pleading for bystanders to help, and nobody helping falls into self-preservation, not "mind my own business", and while this is a more emotional topic. How many times do you see people smoking under non-smoking signs per day? Speeding? Jaywalking? I don't see anyone ever run up to these people and tell them to stop or they will be arrested. Why? It's their own risk. What if that person doesn't appreciate being "helped" and turns around and shoots you? It goes back to self preservation. Unlike a comic, in real life there are choices that can get you killed. Occasionally unsupervised kids kill each other trying to imitate what they saw in fiction. Who's fault is that? The parents.

If one has a difficult time separating fiction from reality, then it is best to stop reading fiction.

We should not be imposing our morals on others. That is the job of the parents. When we start imposing our morals on others we get conflicts over who's interpretation of some fictional work is right, when really it's only the writer or artists interpretation that is right. If you disagree with the artist.

"If you don't like it, don't read it" ... again, Bill, the artist of Kevin and Kell, is not your next door neighbour, you are not forced to read the comic between your front door and your car. Poor use of this argument is when neighbours want an excuse to go post stuff on common or public property. Websites are private property, you are not required to visit the website before going to google. There are legal implications of posting intellectual property where the argument does not fly. Anything you do in your private space without others is your business.

I don't know how I can make it any more clear. It's a comic, it's a website, do you own any any of the servers it's running on, or run ads on it? What harm is the website doing to you by existing and you not reading it? Do you have a financial interest in Kevin and Kell's Intellectual Property?

I can make the argument, being able to control the content on comicgenesis*, that if there is something of liability on the site, that it should be removed, but I'm not going to go around deleting comics left and right just because one person complains, or because I think it's disgusting, but I'm not going to remove something without a legal order to do so or unless the owner of the comic volunteers to remove it themselves.

The CG forums may provide for an interesting debate, but if the conversation goes around in circles to long, people forget what the topic is.

*I may provide service for, but I am not employed by Keenspot Entertainment, nor do I speak for Keenspot Entertainment, my opinions are my own.

EDIT 11:07AM
Before I forget, I found a better analogy to the "don't like it, don't read it"

Telemarketers and door-to-door travelling salespeople/religous folk.

A webcomic is neither, YOU visit it. They can tell you to go away though, and prevent you from reading further.

Telemarkters visit you, door-to-door sales people visit YOU, etc. You have the right to tell them to go away and never bother you again. You can even sue them for trespassing if they do. They aren't visiting and then stealing your wallet either.

If you don't like them, don't answer the door, but since they are on your property, you have the right to get rid of them without causing harm. You can even call the police.

Likewise with telemarkters, you can call the do-not-call registry and sue any that call you after.

Anyway unless someone has something else to add, can we please move to closing arguments.

rkolter wrote:There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.

What a horridly defective analogy. The proper one would be a Christian eating a ham, and a Jew proceeding to send him death threats because of it.

Not really.

Actually, Paul's correction is valid. A better example would have been:

It's like devouring a steak with great gusto, sighing with pleasure as the savory flavor of each bite bursts in your mouth, throughly enjoying your unquestioned right to partake in the steak's meaty excellence, while sitting at a table surrounded by vegans, and wondering why they're not looking happy about your good time.

Crossfire: "Thank you! That explains it very nicely, and in a language that someone other than a physicist can understand..."

Denial is not falsification. You can't avoid a fact just because you don't like it."Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"

rkolter wrote:There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.

What a horridly defective analogy. The proper one would be a Christian eating a ham, and a Jew proceeding to send him death threats because of it.

Not really.

Actually, Paul's correction is valid. A better example would have been:

It's like devouring a steak with great gusto, sighing with pleasure as the savory flavor of each bite bursts in your mouth, throughly enjoying your unquestioned right to partake in the steak's meaty excellence, while sitting at a table surrounded by vegans, and wondering why they're not looking happy about your good time.

god i love doing things like that.

i mean.. i have the utmost respect for the vegan lifesty..... ::bursts out laughing:: sorry, couldn't keep a straight face.

-D. M. Jeftinija Ph.D."People who don't care about anything will never understand the people who do." "yeah.. but we won't care.""Legostar's on the first page of the guide. His opinion is worth more than both of yours."--Yeahduff

rkolter wrote:There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.

What a horridly defective analogy. The proper one would be a Christian eating a ham, and a Jew proceeding to send him death threats because of it.

Not really.

Actually, Paul's correction is valid. A better example would have been:

It's like devouring a steak with great gusto, sighing with pleasure as the savory flavor of each bite bursts in your mouth, throughly enjoying your unquestioned right to partake in the steak's meaty excellence, while sitting at a table surrounded by vegans, and wondering why they're not looking happy about your good time.

god i love doing things like that.

i mean.. i have the utmost respect for the vegan lifesty..... ::bursts out laughing:: sorry, couldn't keep a straight face.

Ask Phact0rri how much I bug him about his vegan lifestyle. I almost feel bad sometimes, but he manages to get even.

Crossfire: "Thank you! That explains it very nicely, and in a language that someone other than a physicist can understand..."

Denial is not falsification. You can't avoid a fact just because you don't like it."Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"